BTW
TT
GOAT - AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HHHHAAAAAAAH HAH. And a big fucking
lolzers!
RzR
you are short on each count hahaha
h2h dont mean shit unless the players are close to the same age you moron
felangey
the 5 title against the best......something Nadal can't seem to do? Speak
up? Hmmm?
Now go make gran a cup of tea and behave yourself. You weren't so much with
the smack talk earlier.....your meek little...."em heehee....not sure Rafa
will win this one....maybe its off to Monte Carlo for
him....*whimper*"...easier after the fact, eh? :D
ocean
Embarrassing H2H!
RzR
yes tt is a well known chickenshit
RzR
luckily he has a nice H2H vs the grand slams :D
TT
Who won? And how? :-D
TT
Not embarrassing. Pitiful. No other great was fucked like a duck like
rogi... :(
RzR
yes...it will be nice in 20 years to read, hear whatever...roger is the
greatest player of all the time...there was that guy nadal that troubled
him, but he faded early, and never came close to rogers slam count
bank on it ;)
TT
You remember a guy named Rosewall? He was the one who won 23 majors but
lost to Laver. 23, for fucks sakes. and was beaten, barely. History will
not be that kind with Roger :(
RzR
we shall see...for people like you, even one win over roger would be a
proof that he was not the greatest, even though every single main
category proves it
Iceberg
yes, the h2h is really something like 18-9 I think cos the ATP pages
for some reason don't include matches like the UAE January one.
RzR
it can be 100-0 and it still wont mean crap if nadal doesnt reach 16
slams...a cold, hard truth
bob
wrote:
listen, should nadal get fed at FO this could get really bad. IMO, fed
skips FO to prepare for Wimbledon.
bob
TT
Yeah, except career win% etc. Why is it so important for
you that an ugly tennis player is the "greatest" when clearly he's not?
John Liang
H2H would suggest Ferreira is equally great as Sampras and Krajicek is
superior than Sampras.. H2h is very meaningful when someone
come up in the next few years and start beating the crap out of
Nadal, I am sure you and TT would come back and say Nadal was pretty
ordinary too.
Joe Ramirez
History remembers Rosewall very well; it simply doesn't remember the
eight-man-draw 1960s events that you blithely refer to as "majors."
As for Laver, people remember his calendar slams, and always will. His
defeats of Rosewall in particular are just fading footnotes.
RzR
ok his game was ugly today, but usually his worst is better than most on
tour
16 grand slams prove that he was the best
but hey, anyone is welcome to match that and get considered for taking
the spot away from roger
RzR
i think we would give the "any imaginable excuse possible" a new
definition if that happened :)
John Liang
Listen, Federer is not Lendl who need to skip a tournament to win
Wimbledon. He already won Wimbledon what he needs
to do at FO is to practice his net game and his approach.
TT
You actually avoided answering my question...why is so important? Why
fool yourself?
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Career win % has vrery little meaning to how player is rated in
overall greatness. Take Sampras for example
his career win % on clay is the worst of any open era champions yet he
still ranked well above Nadal in greatness.
That 7 Wimbledon titles and 5 USO compare to Nadal's 3 really take
care of the career win % argument and also
his H2H record against greats like Krajicek.
TT
> On Apr 1, 9:32 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 2.4.2011 4:22, RzR kirjoitti:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2.4.2011. 3:19, TT wrote:
>>>> 2.4.2011 4:05, ocean kirjoitti:
>>>>> On 1 abr, 23:59, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 15-8
>>
>>>>>> GOAT - AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HHHHAAAAAAAH HAH. And
>>>>>> a big fucking lolzers!
>>
>>>>> Embarrassing H2H!
>>
>>>> Not embarrassing. Pitiful. No other great was fucked like a
>>>> duck like rogi... :(
>>
>>> yes...it will be nice in 20 years to read, hear whatever...roger
>>> is the greatest player of all the time...there was that guy nadal
>>> that troubled him, but he faded early, and never came close to
>>> rogers slam count
>>
>>> bank on it ;)
>>
>> You remember a guy named Rosewall? He was the one who won 23 majors
>> but lost to Laver. 23, for fucks sakes. and was beaten, barely.
>> History will not be that kind with Roger :(-
>
> History remembers Rosewall very well; it simply doesn't remember the
> eight-man-draw 1960s events that you blithely refer to as "majors."
You mean like WTF?
>
> As for Laver, people remember his calendar slams, and always will.
> His defeats of Rosewall in particular are just fading footnotes.
Still Rosewall is the one having most majors ever...and nobody cares.
Fed will raped by tennis historians.
RzR
its not really that important, but i am free to make fun of people that
hate roger and try to prematurely proclaim some other pretender as
better than roger, and they have way less accomplishments
if im fooling myself, in what galaxy of foolishness do those other
people live? lol
TT
RzR
> 2.4.2011 4:41, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>> On Apr 1, 9:32 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>> 2.4.2011 4:22, RzR kirjoitti:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2.4.2011. 3:19, TT wrote:
>>>>> 2.4.2011 4:05, ocean kirjoitti:
>>>>>> On 1 abr, 23:59, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 15-8
>>>
>>>>>>> GOAT - AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HHHHAAAAAAAH HAH. And
>>>>>>> a big fucking lolzers!
>>>
>>>>>> Embarrassing H2H!
>>>
>>>>> Not embarrassing. Pitiful. No other great was fucked like a
>>>>> duck like rogi... :(
>>>
>>>> yes...it will be nice in 20 years to read, hear whatever...roger
>>>> is the greatest player of all the time...there was that guy nadal
>>>> that troubled him, but he faded early, and never came close to
>>>> rogers slam count
>>>
>>>> bank on it ;)
>>>
>>> You remember a guy named Rosewall? He was the one who won 23 majors
>>> but lost to Laver. 23, for fucks sakes. and was beaten, barely.
>>> History will not be that kind with Roger :(-
>>
>> History remembers Rosewall very well; it simply doesn't remember the
>> eight-man-draw 1960s events that you blithely refer to as "majors."
>
> You mean like WTF?
>
yet "great" rafa cant even smell the win in it lol
>>
>> As for Laver, people remember his calendar slams, and always will.
>> His defeats of Rosewall in particular are just fading footnotes.
>
> Still Rosewall is the one having most majors ever...and nobody cares.
> Fed will raped by tennis historians.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-idDbIfGvw
nah...just by the hating fans, which doesnt matter at all
TT
You still didn't answer my question. What ARE you afraid? :(
Joe Ramirez
> 2.4.2011 4:41, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 1, 9:32 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >> 2.4.2011 4:22, RzR kirjoitti:
>
> >>> On 2.4.2011. 3:19, TT wrote:
> >>>> 2.4.2011 4:05, ocean kirjoitti:
> >>>>> On 1 abr, 23:59, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> 15-8
>
> >>>>>> GOAT - AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HHHHAAAAAAAH HAH. And
> >>>>>> a big fucking lolzers!
>
> >>>>> Embarrassing H2H!
>
> >>>> Not embarrassing. Pitiful. No other great was fucked like a
> >>>> duck like rogi... :(
>
> >>> yes...it will be nice in 20 years to read, hear whatever...roger
> >>> is the greatest player of all the time...there was that guy nadal
> >>> that troubled him, but he faded early, and never came close to
> >>> rogers slam count
>
> >>> bank on it ;)
>
> >> You remember a guy named Rosewall? He was the one who won 23 majors
> >> but lost to Laver. 23, for fucks sakes. and was beaten, barely.
> >> History will not be that kind with Roger :(-
>
> > History remembers Rosewall very well; it simply doesn't remember the
> > eight-man-draw 1960s events that you blithely refer to as "majors."
>
> You mean like WTF?
Who (other than Raja) counts the YEC as a "major"? It's the most
important current tournament *after* the slams, but it's not one of
them, and isn't counted as one of them.
>
> > As for Laver, people remember his calendar slams, and always will.
> > His defeats of Rosewall in particular are just fading footnotes.
>
> Still Rosewall is the one having most majors ever...and nobody cares.
People would care if they believed in the category of "majors" as you
define it, but unfortunately for you, most people do not. Let's stick
to the root cause, please.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Come back in ten yeas when both guys are retired and ask a tennis
historian what
result they would rather have Federer's record of 16 grand slam wins
or Nadal's superior
h2h record ? I think the answer will easily be more slam titles than
superior h2h. H2h
has very little meaning for players with inferior number of slams.
TT
> and also
> his H2H record against greats like Krajicek.
Are you arguing against yourself? :)
John Liang
No, I am arguing with the toilet trainee who unfortunately did not
even
finish primary school
RzR
it is your assessment that i am fooling myself...i do not think so
you have no argument that roger isnt currently the best ever in history
TT
How the hell can it be "most important after majors" with a 8 man draw?
RzR
boy will that h2h mean next to nothing if nadal doesnt get at least to
13-14 slams
people will wonder, man this guy has a killer record vs the goat, but
how come he was so mentally weak and couldnt surpass him in the slam count
RzR
EIGHT BEST PLAYERS THAT YEAR draw
in which slam does one has to go through so many congested top players
to win?
TT
What the fuck is that? Seriously.
> what result they would rather have Federer's record of 16 grand slam
> wins or Nadal's superior h2h record ? I think the answer will
> easily be more slam titles than superior h2h. H2h has very little
> meaning for players with inferior number of slams.
To my understanding a player losing to his main rival can not be
considered tier I.
TT
So you're saying that Joe is wrong with his 8 player argument...fine, I
can live with that.
RzR
>
> To my understanding a player losing to his main rival can not be
> considered tier I.
rafa is not his main rival...too much of the age difference...you have a
wrong understanding
TT
> people will wonder, man this guy has a killer record vs the goat, but
> how come he was so mentally weak
Dude, pick up your act.
TT
So who is?
RzR
dunno...someone close to his age who was on top at the time he was
racking up 5 slams in a row
TT
I think primary school in Finland equals to university in your
country...just saying...
RzR
ok, physically weak, sorry
TT
No answer then...
TT
I'm not asking who is GOAT. I'M ASKING WHY IS IT SO FUCKING IMPORTANT TO
YOU!? Get it?
RzR
whoever was his main rival back then, he couldnt stop him from racking
up all the possible records...
TT
Still no answer. You're not a worthy rival to argue with. Sorry and bye.. :(
RzR
it seems that its way more important to you and likes that he is not...i
am just pointing out the facts which say that you are wrong...get it?
RzR
LOL
why fixated on main rival theory
who says there has to be a main rival?
you?
who are you?
John Liang
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Come back in ten yeas when both guys are retired and ask a tennis
> > historian
>
> What the fuck is that? Seriously.
>
> > what result they would rather have Federer's record of 16 grand slam
> > wins or Nadal's superior h2h record ? I think the answer will
> > easily be more slam titles than superior h2h. H2h has very little
> > meaning for players with inferior number of slams.
>
> To my understanding a player losing to his main rival can not be
>
> - Show quoted text -
To my understanding player with inferior grand slam titles will always
be considered as an
inferior player.
John Liang
More like equal to our kindegarden level in my coutry.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
On clay Nadal's main rival is Federer but on hard court during his
peak Nadal was not even a rival on that surface.
RzR
so partial rival, or as i always say, a footnote in feds glorious career
TT
> On 2.4.2011. 3:40, John Liang wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 12:34 pm, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 2, 2:04 am, RzR<2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2.4.2011. 2:59, TT wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 15-8
>>>
>>>>> GOAT - AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HHHHAAAAAAAH HAH. And a big
>>>>> fucking
>>>>> lolzers!
>>>
>>>
>>>> h2h dont mean shit unless the players are close to the same age you
>>>> moron
>>>
>>> yes, the h2h is really something like 18-9 I think cos the ATP pages
>>> for some reason don't include matches like the UAE January one.
>>
>> H2H would suggest Ferreira is equally great as Sampras and Krajicek is
>> superior than Sampras.. H2h is very meaningful when someone
>> come up in the next few years and start beating the crap out of
>> Nadal, I am sure you and TT would come back and say Nadal was pretty
>> ordinary too.
>
> i think we would give the "any imaginable excuse possible" a new
> definition if that happened :)
Maybe. But the point is that it has not happened and unlikely will,
contrary to some other players.
It could be that Djoker would always beat Nadal on clay starting from
now on - but it's impossible, Nadal is just 2 damn good! :-D
True greats can not be humiliated time and time again by their main
rival. A fact.
RzR
and in a related news, noone is even close to rogers slam count...A FACT!
felangey
> rival. A fact<
Of course. True greats are humiliated by little bald filthy fixers? :)
Court_1
> 15-8
>
> GOAT - AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HHHHAAAAAAAH HAH. And a big fucking
> lolzers!
Sure it is easy to gloat now when Roger has declined and Rafa is still
in his prime. Does not matter though because Nadal will not likely
beat Roger's slam record and many other records. That is the only
thing that actually counts.
Court_1
> On 1 abr, 23:59, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
> > 15-8
>
> > GOAT - AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HHHHAAAAAAAH HAH. And a big fucking
> > lolzers!
>
You mean like the one Davydenko has over Nadal? H2H means shit in the
end. It is the history and all records that count as a whole.
Court_1
>
> >>> 15-8
>
> >>> GOAT - AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HHHHAAAAAAAH HAH. And a big fucking
> >>> lolzers!
>
>
> >> h2h dont mean shit unless the players are close to the same age you moron
>
> > yes, the h2h is really something like 18-9 I think cos the ATP pages
> > for some reason don't include matches like the UAE January one.
>
> slams...a cold, hard truth
Yes. That is the truth.
TT
That's nice. Why would beating a tier II player's record be important
though?
Court_1
It is obviously important to you.
felangey
Even when Nads is winning....TT is losing. Its awl about Wogi for da wee
man....he broke him....through and through. :(
Whisper
> On 2.4.2011. 2:59, TT wrote:
>> 15-8
>>
>> GOAT - AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HHHHAAAAAAAH HAH. And a big fucking
>> lolzers!
>
>
> h2h dont mean shit unless the players are close to the same age you moron
>
It means a lot if they are ranked top 3. Most of Rafa's wins came when
Fed was ranked No.1.
RzR
no shit...thats what i am saying...why would fed care about h2h vs a
tier2 player
John Liang
And most of that come on Nadal's favour court surface clay. If we
shift to Federer's favour surface that is on hard court and grass
court
Nadal was only good enough to reach 2 out 15 attempts on HC grand
slams. If Federer wasn't as good as he was on clay he would have
cut that misleading h2h deficit by a large margin. Think about it if
Federer has Sampras' like career on clay he certainly would never have
the opportunity to lost to Nadal 9 times on that surface and he
probalby would never win FO. As for meaning for these wins well they
are
still secondary consideration when consider where these players stand
in the history of the game and it will only has some meaning when
Nadal actually equals Federer's slam total.
RzR
yes fed would be a better goat candidate if he played less
:))))